Salem calendar

Question

So far as I can tell, the Salem (Mass) births were published in book form in 1916, but sorted alphabetically.  Bad idea - you lose the original order of the records as a check against ambiguities, mistakes and mistranscriptions in the dates.

On the face of it, I'd take 1: 3mo: 1642 to mean 1st May 1642, and 13: 1: 1642 to mean 13 Mar 1642/3, 10 months later.

Perley gave the baptisms of Elder John Browne's kids in 1909 (before the register was printed).  Perley's dates match the book.

https://archive.org/details/essexantiquaria06perlgoog/page/n1645

Those two dates appear, but the other way round.  Either Perley has somehow got them in the wrong order, or else, if the order is as they came, the numbers have to be interpreted differently.

Can anybody shed any light?

Comments

Perhaps these date were during the period when 1642 was expressed as 1642/3?

---

and when you do have old/new, WikiTree guidelines say to use new in the datafield - see https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Date_Fields#Julian_vs._Gregorian_Calendar

my favorite explanation is Sue Roe's "The Problem of Dates". She also has details about Quaker dates. See http://www.genealogytoday.com/columns/recipes/tip14.html

Answer 1

This Aussie would tend to see 13:1:1642 as 13 January 1642.

If these are brits who have migrated maybe they were still using that form of recording.

Comments

Except it says "3 mo".

---

Janet, I was referring to the second part not the bit with the 3mo in it.

---

In Colonial records, the year began in March not January. I am not sure when it changed though.

---

In 1752 the Julian calendar was replaced by the Gregorian calendar.  This changed the beginning of the year to January 1 and also change the calculation for leap year.

Answer 2

I'm sending you a pdf. pp 18 and 19 I interpret: Jacob and Samuel 13; 1st m 1641/2. John 1st 3m. 1642/3 (although 1643 never got put at the top of the page)

Comments

Send me a private message so I have your email, to send it.